Comments

schaki: I find it somewhat laughable that Fujifilm have copied the "M" from Leica rangefinders at the same time as using the M for their most simple model which in fact should be for the X-Pro1.So what is the next joke from Fujifilm? Probably that the jpegs with badly smudged foliage still remain unchanged from previous models in the X-series? At least i might guess so unless they've some other bad card to play on..I could have considered the X20 if it not had been for that very irritating flaw.At least they've got the tilt-lcd right with the X-M1. Hope to see options with low NR included as well and I might test one.

Sounds like someone has a very big bank account and a very small brain...

Pangloss: Even at a lower price, the only significant market for this camera is Japan, it's not likely to gain traction anywhere else. There is no market anymore for these $500 toys in the rest of the world. Pentax and fanboys can argue that the IQ is excellent, but in the end it's the size and the color combinations that matter for the Japanese market. For the rest of the world, this camera just doesn't cut it at this price level, as it has to compete with many other compact and mirrorless cameras with better IQ and better feature sets. A NEX-F3 will spank this Q7 in terms of IQ at any ISO for the same $500, whereas the LX7 for half the price will easily provide more flexibility and more features in a slightly larger package.Conclusion: nice but FAIL.

If you gave me the choice between an LX7, NEX-F3 or Q7 for $500 and I had to pick one I would pick the Q7 ...and I don't live in Japan. Huh, imagine that.

- Pulitzer is spelled wrong- People think that local newspapers still need paid full time photographers- wow, unions still exist ...I think its time to kill off the rest- People think that although a paper is bleeding money and about to go under they still need to keep a full photography staff- People are still misquoting the CEO of Flickr by using a statement out of context (by the way: a reason to keep writers and fire photogs)

A lot of posts about the price ...well, yes, relative to the "normal" user of the system and the prices of the bodies and alternative lenses, it is very expensive but this is an f/1.2 lens and relative to previously released 1.2's it is priced fairly cheaply. Other than the knock off type companies who produces an autofocus f/1.2 lens today? Only Canon I believe (50 and 85).

I would almost say that many of the "too expensive" posts are being written by people who don't know what they are actually seeing here ...other than an expensive 85.

I still use PSE ver 1 ...works perfectly fine. Anyone who upgrades every time Adobe comes out with a new version is, in my opinion, an idoit or has alot of money to waste ...figure I'll pick up the latest version and I'm good for life or until someone else comes out with something better ...a monthly subscription, you gotta be kidding me.

When I look at these photos I see a lot that are actually just the opposite of freedom ...held back, attached to something, the American flag - symbol of a government which, by definition, makes laws to inhibit freedom...

fpessolano: What a robbery for me. I took the ultimate collection beginning of February and I feel like they stole 300 bucks.I guess they will get many customers now, so they do not care about loosing a few who are like me ... feeling somewhat robbed.

Why did you buy it for that much? ...either you thought it was worth it or you needed it for something specific.

Just like everything else in the world, items go on sale and get discounted. Hey, I'm using a version of PSE for free ...does that mean that everyone who ever bought it got ripped off ...no.

Looks like a decent upgrade ...better sealing, screen and cmos sensor. No RAW but this isn't aimed at the person who wants or even knows what RAW is ...starts at f/3.9 - a non issue for taking pics at the beach and in the water. A lot of complainers around here.

Now ...what would be the disadvantage of just using another layer of the same photo and erase what you would want from there ...instead of the gradient layer ...I guess just using a different layer type...